Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

stockings behind the lens

A

Adrian Correia

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
584
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.adriancorreia.com
anyone have a basic procedure or a link to how this can be done in the best fashion and the differences between using black, white, flesh stockings? Brands to use more than others? In front vs. behind? How tight do you stretch them, etc...

I also have a Cooke 18-100 and was curious if anyone could give some pointers on how to use the behind the lens holders? I am a little inexperienced in this regard and certainly don't want to experiment with pricey optics.

Thanks guys!
 
Adrian Correia said:
anyone have a basic procedure or a link to how this can be done in the best fashion and the differences between using black, white, flesh stockings? Brands to use more than others? In front vs. behind? How tight do you stretch them, etc...

I also have a Cooke 18-100 and was curious if anyone could give some pointers on how to use the behind the lens holders? I am a little inexperienced in this regard and certainly don't want to experiment with pricey optics.

Thanks guys!
Click to expand...

What is it that you are trying to achieve?

If you really have a good reason to use softening in raw footage, consider wide choice of various filters designed for this purpose. Make sure you evaluate the result in full resolution as it can not be un-done. I would leave this to post effects and concentrate on things like exposure, focus, framing, ligting, etc...
 
Pawel Achtel said:
I would leave this to post effects and concentrate on things like exposure, focus, framing, ligting, etc...
Click to expand...

What fun would that be??? Only leave it for post if you have to, photography is about achievement, getting the perfect picture (to what you want to achieve - not resolution and sharpness) IMHO, of course,

... and Adrian with RED you have the possibility to test this and get instant result (stockings are not that expensive :biggrin: )

Start with stretching them in front of the optics

Fredrik Callinggard
 
For what it's worth, I used to use a small circle cut from black stockings stretched tight and held in place with a small diameter rubber band on the rear element of the Fujinon lens on my Beta SP camera.

That was 17 years ago, long before there were any viable post options to achieve the same effect.

I also remember a lively conversation with my wife about why there were black pantyhose in the trunk of my car. She seemed unconvinced by my technical explanation.

John
 
As John say I would use black stockings because they would work more like Black Promist - go more for the high lights and not interfere as much with the shadows. Other stockings colors will do slightly differently and be more like White promist and do the whole image (they're also slightly harder to see through - or they tint so to speak (which black ones does as well but with....black).

This is of course according to preference and what's intended for the result.

Fredrik
 
I've used stockings behind the lens shooting large format stills. Can be really beautiful. The tighter you stretch the stocking, the less effect it has, as the holes in the mesh weave get larger. So, just stretch to taste. Some people swear by different brands and styles, but I just bought the cheap stuff in a egg at the mall and it works great. Doing a quick search or "stocking behind lens" or "rear netting lens" in google just now I found a few articles and postings with people talking about using different types of tulle having different shaped mesh and varieties of stocking densities each giving varying degrees and characteristics of diffusion. So try whatever you can find and test it out. It's up to you in the end.

I've yet to find a good way to stretch over the rear element of most 35mm stills and cinema lenses. Large format lenses usually have a "fluted" rear element on the back side of the lensboard, so it's very easy to just stretch and rubberband. Most still lenses rear elements are pretty flat and contained within the housing close to the lensmount leaving little room for attachment. I've seen people suggest snot tape or rubber cement as they're both fairly easy to remove from the lens.

There are also filter holders made specifically for this purpose called iRings.

http://lightbreak.com/iring_article.php

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/...e_+23.49+<=+50000/sortDrop/Price:+Low+to+High

They're made for B4 mount video lenses though so they won't necessarily fit stills or cinema lenses. It might be easier, though, to stretch the stocking to taste in one of these, then figure out how to attach that to the back of the lens. Don't know if it would work, though since there is not a standard rear element diameter and the irings may not cover your particular lens. It would at least keep the stocking stretched uniformly and to the degree that you want it.

I know that they used netting extensively on Atonement. Whether it was stockings or other mesh fabrics I don't know. But they used Panavision lenses with rear filter slots and put the netting into the filter rings. Much easier method.

Have fun and good luck.
 
Pawel Achtel said:
I would leave this to post effects and concentrate on things like exposure, focus, framing, ligting, etc...
Click to expand...

I cannot agree more with this advise. With current technology I would go with a clean image, and play with it in post. I did something similar many years ago, but using filters, and today I would like to have the original at its best, and change it with current easy-to-use post "filters", for a re-editing of the same material.:sad:
 
I would leave this to post effects and concentrate on things like exposure, focus, framing, ligting, etc...
Click to expand...
If you do it in-camera, it's a 4K real-time effect with linear light processing. ;)

Though in the post route you have more options and can do more sophisticated things... e.g. soften only flesh tones, setup your glow not to make the blacks milky, etc. If you want linear light processing for results similar to the optical route, then the render times can get pretty killer.
 
I think you should decide what you want the piece to look like and how it should be shot and posted to get that look. My advice is to split the difference, do a little in-camera filtration if you're sure that's the look you want, because you can get many organic happy accidents with how bright spots interact with the filter... but use a much lighter grade than you intend with the idea you can always increase the effect in post. This way you aren't necessarily rendering 100% of your project for some sort of diffusion effect.

Especially if you're not supervising the post yourself, because a render-intensive effect could easily be dropped for convenience and cost sake and you'll be screwed if you shot the project thinking that it would look softer than it ultimately looks. So baking in half the effect in the original recording at least makes everyone aware of what the intended effect will be. Same goes for color effects, shooting completely neutral for warm or cold scenes may mean that when post color-correction is done months later, someone forgets that the scene was supposed to be warm or cold, like for a blue day-for-night effect. But you don't want to overdo the color effect in camera either, you just want a hint of it so that everyone is clear what is intended.
 
Anyone know of good FCP plug ins to do this? I know about magic bullet etc, but just one that does a nice promist without the rest?
 
The most common stocking among cinematographers is black dior diorissimo.

I use rubber bands made for braces that I got from my dentist to mount it to the back of the lens.

Make sure you have a big HD monitor on the set to view the effect. Believe me it looks different on the big screen than on an 8-inch HD monitor.

Simon
 
I don't think I've ever seen a high-end, motion, "out-of-the box" digital fx plug-in with a "stocking effect". Lots of standard glass filter fx, but not stockings. Did I miss it? Anyone know of one?
 
I like to use a material called "tulle"...it's like the material found on the veil of a wedding dress, only in black. It has a very wide square spacing and softens just a little, but also gives some interesting effects on highlights. I've used the i-ring product very effectively with B4 lenses, and wish there were a similar product for PL mount glass.
 
Sorry to revive this very old thread - but it does have some good info and I didn't want to start a new one.

Question I have is - aren't there concerns about whatever's being used to hold the netting in place on the back of the lens falling off and falling onto the sensor etc? I'm not seeing this concern expressed anywhere and am wondering what I'm missing here.

Thanks for any clarifications and/or any updated info on this topic.
 
I have often seen rubber cement and super glue used to hold them on the back of the lens (the rental house LOVES this). this movie was shot on ultra primes with black nets. The DP wanted them all torn and non uniform as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14zLs-0t3yw

Personally, I think shooting on super modern glass and then screwing it up is lame. Just shoot on an old 20-100 or some old Baltars or lomos. But to each his own. I saw screw middle of the road safety. Make a decision and go for it. Wishy washy just comes off as wishy washy.

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top